smac97 Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 I would like to compile references for people who saw/witnessed the artifacts Joseph Smith found other than the Plates. I think these other objects get some short shrift in terms of our attention. Some critics posit that Joseph Smith fabricated the Plates. Fair enough. A motive for doing so is not hard to discern. Joseph as either a pious fraud or a conniving one could have fabricated the Plates to deceive the witnesses. But do critics ever get around to explaining why Joseph would have been motivated to go to all the additional work of fabricating A) the Sword of Laban, B) the Breastplate, and C) the Liahona? Why compound the amount of fabricating work he had to do? Let's first start with D&C 17, (a revelation "given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris") : Quote 1 Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea. 2 And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old. 3 And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God; 4 And this you shall do that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., may not be destroyed, that I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work. Daniel Peterson makes some trenchant remarks about D&C 17 in this video. A partial transcript (the interviewer is "CBF," and Daniel Peterson is "DP") : Quote CBF: So, we put a lot of focus on the fact that the witnesses saw the plates, but there were other things they saw, right? Can you tell me a little bit about that? DP: There were, and I think it’s really interesting that there were. Doctrine and Covenants 17, first verse, which was given in June of 1829, so before the witnesses experience. In that section the Lord promises the witnesses that, ‘You shall have a view of the plates and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim (which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount when he talked with the Lord face-to-face), and the miraculous directors which were given them to Lehi while in the wilderness (that’s the Liahona) on the borders of the Red Sea.’ So if you’re Joseph Smith, if you’re a fake, you’ve just given yourself a really stiff assignment, you’ve gotta produce not only plates, but all this other stuff and they’ve got to record that they see it. So, did they? And the answer is, yes, they did. DP cont’d: David Whitmer, in one interview, says, ‘There appeared, as it were, a table with many records on it, besides the plates of The Book of Mormon, also the sword of Laban, the directors and the interpreters. I saw them as plain as I see this bed,’ and he strikes his hand upon the bed beside him. And to me that’s pretty impressive because people said, ‘Well, maybe Joseph created plates.’ That’s really dubious, right, to begin with. But he must’ve been running some sort of specialized metal foundry or something like that to have produced the Liahona, the sword of Laban, the breastplate, all these other things that he’s got to produce IF he’s faking it. And he promises he’ll show them and then he does. They see all those things and hear the voice of God and see the angel. That’s pretty impressive. CBF: Right. I think that’s an aspect that we kind of brush over a lot in church. Obviously, the plates are more, like influential, because it’s the book of scripture, but how cool that they were able to see all those other items, all those other historical artifacts. I think that’s incredible. DP: And it greatly complicates Joseph’s task if he’s making these things up, or any group of conspirators, they’ve got to produce all sorts of things. And I ask myself, in the first place, what’s the point, if you want to be a fake prophet just give a revelation. Why invoke all of these material objects you’ve got to now produce and make convincing, and show to people. It’s just making the job much, much harder. But it also, to my mind, makes the explanation of it much, much harder for critics. CBF: Mm Hm. DP: I remember a friend, an academic friend, was saying, ‘What was the point of the plates? I mean, it’s not clear that Joseph absolutely needed to be looking at them in order to receive the revealed translation. They had to be near to him, they didn’t always have to be right there.’ And I said, ‘Well for one thing, they’re an absolutely indigestible lump in the throats of people like you who want to say that he just made it up.’ I mean, he’s got all these objects he’s got to produce. It takes it out of the realm of the subjective, it’s not just Joseph having this happy little fantasy that he’s created for himself. No, there are all these heavy objects that other people see and heft and move around. Emma has to move the plates around. Lucy Mack Smith feels the breastplate through a cloth, maybe even sees it. She said she could see the glint of the metal through the thin linen cloth. That’s a really complicated thing, and so I’m imagining, did none of the neighbors notice that Joseph had this metal foundry going on there south of Palmyra, smoke belching out as he pounded out his plates and made his breastplate and made all these specialty objects. Where did learn all this metallurgy? CBF: Right. DP: Just, it’s not plausible. CBF: So why do you think the angel even brought those if just the plates would have been enough? DP: I think for one thing, it does make the counter-explanation harder because you’ve got so many more things to account for, things that are way beyond the capacity of Joseph Smith to do. Now, by the way there was an idea floating around early on that maybe Oliver Cowdrey was a blacksmith or something like that and he had the ability to do it. Well, what we know about Oliver Cowdrey is that he was a fairly slightly built person– not your image of the village blacksmith with the broad and sinewy arms and all that sort of thing, pounding things out with a sledgehammer. That’s not Oliver. Oliver is a bookish sort of guy. He becomes a lawyer, he’s a politician, he’s a writer, he’s an intellectual. So, they’re looking around at first. They drop it pretty quickly because Oliver just isn’t possible as a blacksmith that’s just not gonna fly. So people have basically ignored that issue, but I think it’s a really important one. Book of Mormon Central has an excellent article on this: Is There Evidence That Joseph Smith Possessed a Urim and Thummim and Breastplate? Quote Some may not realize that Joseph Smith obtained two Nephite relics—the interpreters and breastplate—which were buried along with the golden plates that he discovered on a hill near his family’s farm. Fortunately, several witnesses left detailed descriptions of what these artifacts were like. These items are worth careful consideration because their tangible and historical reality helps confirm the reality of the golden plates and the Nephite record which was engraved upon them. Joseph Smith described the Nephite interpreters (which, over time, came to be known as the Urim and Thummim)1 as “two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.”2 Martin Harris said they “were about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eighths of an inch thick at the center; but not so thick at the edges where they came into the bow.” He added that they were “white, like polished marble, with a few gray streaks.”3 John Whitmer called them “two crystals or glasses.”4 Lucy Mack Smith said they resembled “two large bright diamonds.”5 David Whitmer reported that they were “white stones, each of them cased in as spectacles are, in a kind of silver casing, but the bow between the stones was more heavy, and longer apart between the stones, than we usually find it in spectacles.”6 William Smith further explained that a “silver bow ran over one stone, under the other, around over that one and under the first in the shape of a horizontal figure 8 much like a pair of spectacles.”7 Detailed descriptions were also given for the breastplate. As Lucy explained, It was concave on one side and convex on the other, and extended from the neck downwards as far as the center of the stomach of a man of extraordinary size. It had four straps of the same material for the purpose of fastening it to the breast, two of which ran back to go over the shoulders, and the other two were designed to fasten to the hips. They were just the width of two of my fingers (for I measured them), and they had holes in the end of them to be convenient in fastening.8 Lucy not only saw, but also physically held the breastplate. She explained, “I have … carried in my hands the sacred breastplate. It is composed of pure gold, and is made to fit the breast very exactly.”9 In another account, she said it had “glistening metal,” and she estimated its worth to be “at least five hundred dollars.”10 Apparently, the interpreters and breastplate, including a rod that could connect them, belonged together as a set. William Smith explained, At one end was attached a rod which was connected with the outer edge of the right shoulder of the breast-plate. By pressing the head a little forward, the rod held the Urim and Thummim before the eyes much like a pair of spectacles. A pocket was prepared in the breastplate on the left side, immediately over the heart. When not in use the [interpreters were] placed in this pocket, the rod being of just the right length to allow it to be so deposited.11 The Why The interpreters and breastplate were among the Nephite artifacts shown to the Three Witness.12 These additional accounts not only help confirm their reality, but also show a general consistency concerning their appearance. Collectively, these documented statements provide solid historical evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed possess the specific ancient artifacts that he claimed to have received with the plates. Some individuals have suggested that the experiences the Three and Eight Witnesses had with the plates were merely imaginary.13 Others have supposed that Joseph Smith simply forged a fake set of plates.14 The accounts of the Nephite interpreters and breastplate, however, make these already tenuous theories even more difficult to sustain. This is because they present two more tangible, meticulously described, artifacts which were seen by individuals other than the official witnesses. When the detailed descriptions of these additional relics are added to the reports from nearly two dozen individuals who had some sort of sensory encounter with the golden plates,15 mass hallucination becomes an untenable explanation.16 At the same time, theories which suppose Joseph simply forged a set of golden plates—an already unlikely feat17—also have to explain where he got the time, skills, and resources to craft a believable set of Nephite interpreters, as well as an impressive breastplate.18 According to numerous witnesses, the interpreters were set in silver rims which, as William Smith described, twisted about in a figure 8. This suggests that the interpreters and breastplate would both have required additional metallurgical talent to create. Moreover, Lucy Smith reportedly believed that the breastplate was made from precious metal (in one account, pure gold) and was expensive. Did Joseph Smith really have the materials and knowledge to create an artifact that his mother estimated to be worth at least 500 dollars? It seems not. Martin Harris, for instance, once lifted the plates while in a wooden box and commented that they were either “lead or gold,” and that he knew Joseph “had not enough credit to buy so much lead.”19 In other words, the Smith’s truly were destitute, and merely the weight of the plates alone helped convince Martin that he wasn’t being duped. In a similar way, Lucy would likely have known whether or not Joseph had the materials, skills, or funds to produce the breastplate she beheld. Whatever one chooses to think about these artifacts, it seems that everyone close to Joseph Smith believed he had them. A number of individuals described one or both of them in detail, and there are no reports of these individuals ever denying their experiences. As demonstrated, it is historically unlikely that Joseph would have possessed such peculiar objects unless he found them as he claimed, buried in the earth. Thus, although the interpreters and breastplate do not provide absolute proof of anything, the strong case for their historical existence invites belief in the reality and divine origins of the Book of Mormon, which was buried along with them. See also this excellent article by Anthony Sweat: Hefted and Handled: Tangible Interactions with Book of Mormon Objects See also this commentary: Quote The Lord continues to explain that they shall obtain this blessing by faith, they shall testify of the things they shall see, and that if they are faithful, they shall be lifted up at the last day (see DC 17). Joseph continues his history: "Not many days after the above commandment was given, we four, viz., Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and myself, agreed to retire into the woods, and try to obtain, by fervent and humble prayer, the fulfillment of the promises given in the above revelation-that they should have a view of the plates. We accordingly made choice of a piece of woods convenient to Mr. Whitmer's house, to which we retired, and having knelt down, we began to pray in much faith to Almighty God to bestow upon us a realization of these promises. "According to previous arrangement, I commenced vocal prayer to our Heavenly Father, and was followed by each of the others in succession. We did not at the first trial, however, obtain any answer or manifestation of divine favor in our behalf. We again observed the same order of prayer, each calling on and praying fervently to God in rotation, but with the same result as before. "Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly withdrew from us, and we knelt down again, and had not been many minutes engaged in prayer, when presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of. He turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discern the engravings thereon distinctly. He then addressed himself to David Whitmer, and said, 'David, blessed is the Lord, and he that keeps His commandments;' when, immediately afterwards, we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.' "I now left David and Oliver, and went in pursuit of Martin Harris, whom I found at a considerable distance, fervently engaged in prayer. He soon told me, however, that he had not yet prevailed with the Lord, and earnestly requested me to join him in prayer, that he also might realize the same blessings which we had just received. We accordingly joined in prayer, and ultimately obtained our desires, for before we had yet finished, the same vision was opened to our view, at least it was again opened to me, and I once more beheld and heard the same things; whilst at the same moment, Martin Harris cried out, apparently in an ecstasy of joy, "'Tis enough; 'tis enough; mine eyes have beheld; mine eyes have beheld;" and jumping up, he shouted, 'Hosanna,' blessing God, and otherwise rejoiced exceedingly.4 "Having thus, through the mercy of God, obtained these glorious manifestations, it now remained for these three individuals to fulfill the commandment which they had received, viz., to bear record of these things; in order to accomplish which, they drew up and subscribed5 the following document:" (He then records the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, see History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 52-56) The three witnesses also see the sword of Laban, the Liahona, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate as promised in DC 17:1 Although Joseph does not describe this event in the History of the Church, David Whitmer is quoted as follows: "We not only saw the plates of the Book of Mormon but also the brass plates, the plates of the Book of Ether, the plates containing the records of the wickedness and secret combinations of the people of the world down to the time of their being engraved, and many other plates ... there appeared as it were, a table with many records or plates upon it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon, also the Sword of Laban, the Directors i.e., the ball which Lehi had-and the Interpreters [Urim and Thummim]. I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking the bed beside him with his hand), and I heard the voice of the Lord, as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life declaring that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God." (1878 interview between Orson Pratt and David Whitmer, recorded in Book of Mormon Compendium, pp. 55-56) Joseph's joy that others had seen the plates and been charged to testify of them After the heavenly vision, the four men returned to the Whitmer farm. The prophet's mother was there at the time and records: "When they returned to the house it was between three and four o'clock p.m. Mrs. Whitmer, Mr. Smith and myself, were sitting in a bedroom at the time. On coming in, Joseph threw himself down beside me, and exclaimed, 'Father, mother, you do not know how happy I am: the Lord has now caused the plates to be shown to three more besides myself. They have seen an angel, who has testified to them, and they will have to bear witness to the truth of what I have said, for now they know for themselves, that I do not go about to deceive the people, and I feel as if I was relieved of a burden which was almost too heavy for me to bear, and it rejoices my soul, that I am not any longer to be entirely alone in the world.' Upon this, Martin Harris came in: he seemed almost overcome with joy, and testified boldly to what he had both seen and heard. And so did David and Oliver, adding that no tongue could express the joy of their hearts, and the greatness of the things which they had both seen and heard." (History of Joseph Smith by his Mother, p. 153) And this commentary: Quote The plates had to be shown to the three witnesses by the power of God. This means that Joseph Smith could not just show them the plates and ask them to testify. This would not do. Others would contend that he had fashioned some ancient appearing record in order to dupe the three witnesses into a false testimony. In order to prove to the world that Joseph Smith was not a magician and the greatest deceiver of his day, the Lord would reveal the truth of the Book of Mormon to the three witnesses by the indisputable power of God. “It has been the boast of so-called sleight-of-hand performers that they can duplicate every trick of spiritists, no matter how astounding; but here is a plain divine manifestation of which no human art, or ingenuity, can furnish an imitation.” (Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6:111) Accordingly, the three witnesses were not just shown the plates. Instead, they were shown a vision from God in which they saw an angel, saw a light from heaven, and heard a voice. Appropriately, Moroni himself appeared to them and showed them the gold plates, the sword of Laban, the Liahona, the breastplate, and the Liahona (see commentary on the three witnesses and DC 17:1). And here: Quote In the words of David Whitmer, one of the other two witnesses, "It was in the latter part of June, 1829... Joseph, Oliver Cowdery and myself were together, and the angel showed them [the plates] to us.... [We were] sitting on a log when we were overshadowed by a light more glorious than that of the sun. In the midst of this light, but a few feet from us, appeared a table upon which were many golden plates, also the sword of Laban and the directors. I saw them as plain as I see you now, and distinctly heard the voice of the Lord declaring that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God."[25] ... {25} David Whitmer, interview with the Kansas City Journal, June 1, 1881, in Lyndon Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1991), 63. Daniel Peterson recently commented on the significance of the foregoing statements: Quote Now one of the interesting things about this to me and there are many, many interesting things to point out, is the fact that the Lord had already, in Doctrine Covenants 17:1 said what He was going to show to the three Witnesses: “… you shall have a view of the plates and also of the breastplate the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim , which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount when he talked with the Lord face to face and the miraculous directors that is the Liahona which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness on the borders of the Red Sea.” So, there's a kind of promissory list here of the things that the witnesses will see. This is really daring if you're Joseph Smith and you're making it up. You've got to somehow get these guys out into the woods and have them see all the things that you've just promised them they would see. So, is he able to do that? Well, Joseph isn't able to do that. That's the point, but here's what David Whitmer later says in an interview. He says, “The angel showed to us the plates, the sword of Laban, the directors (that is the Liahona), the Urim and Thummim , and other records. There appeared as it were a table with many records on it besides the plates of the Book of Mormon. Also, the sword of Laban the directors and the interpreters. I saw them as plain as I see this bed.” And then the person to whom he's speaking records that he struck his hand upon the bed beside him to make the point. It was solid, I see the bed very clearly. He would often say to people when they would say, “Well, you know maybe it was dark, you couldn't really see clearly, the angel was a long distance away…” He’d say, “Young man, the angel was closer to me than you are. I know what I saw.” So, here the Lord has made a promise of what would be shown to them and David Whitmer later testifies he saw exactly those things the Doctrine and Covenants 17:1 said he would see. If you're a fraud, I just wonder how did he pull that off? How would he have done that? So, the evidence to me is that Joseph was not a fraud and I'll be saying more about that. Here's Brother Anderson again, “Nothing short of biblical Christianity furnishes such a concrete statement of supernatural reality. One cannot dismiss the experience easily. For each man so testifying, impressed his community with his capacity in unwavering honesty and all three consistently reaffirmed the experience in hundreds of interviews throughout their lives.” ... Lucy Mack Smith, the mother of the Prophet actually held and felt the Urim and Thummim and the breastplate. She said that she could see through the cloth that covered the breastplate; it must have been a very thin cloth and not very expensive or dense. She could see the glint of the metal through the cloth of the breastplate beneath. So, these objects were tangible, they were real, there was something. The evidence shows that Joseph had something in 1828-29. Regarding Lucy Mack Smith's interaction with the breastplate referenced above, see here (from the Anthony Sweat article linked to above) : Quote Tangible as Oil Cloths Others soon reported having tangible experiences with the plates or other relics Joseph had recovered from the Hill Cumorah. Some few days after bringing the plates home, Joseph’s mother said that her son called her down from her upstairs work on some oil cloths. Lucy reported, “I finally concluded to go down, and see what he wanted, upon which he handed me the breast-plate spoken of in his history. It was wrapped in a thin muslin handkerchief, so thin that I could see the glistening metal, and ascertain its proportions without any difficulty.” Lucy proceeded to describe the breastplate: It was concave on one side, and convex on the other, and extended from the neck downwards, as far as the centre of the stomach of a man of extraordinary size. It had four straps of the same material, for the purpose of fastening it to the breast, two of which ran back to go over the shoulders, and the other two were designed to fasten to the hips. They were just the width of two of my fingers, (for I measured them,) and they had holes in the end of them, to be convenient in fastening. After I had examined it, Joseph placed it in the chest with the Urim and Thummim.[27] Lucy also reported that she saw the Urim and Thummim, or Nephite interpreters. According to her, on the evening Joseph obtained the plates he handed her the spectacles wrapped only in a thin silk handkerchief through which she could see and discern their shape. “I’ve got a key [the Nephite interpreters],” Joseph told his mother when he came back that evening, and she “took the article of which he spoke into [her] hands.”[28] Upon her examination, she described the seer stones as two “three-cornered” stones set in “silver bows,” connected with each other like “old fashioned spectacles.” Lucy’s experiences and accounts are yet another powerful witness to the tangible reality of Joseph’s Book of Mormon origin story. Handling, feeling, measuring, and describing the breastplate and interpreters was not a supernatural experience, explained away by spiritual phenomena, but was as real and tactile as the very oil cloths she had painted only moments before she handled these relics. New World Encyclopedia includes a footnote summarizing witness statements about these other artifacts: Quote At the proper location, the story goes, Smith saw a large stone covering a box made of stone or possibly iron.[18] Using a stick to remove dirt from the edges of the stone cover, and after prying the cover up with a lever, he saw the plates inside the box, together with other artifacts.[19] ... {19} Smith, 1838a, 15–16. According to various accounts, these artifacts may have included a breastplate (Cowdery, 1835b, 196; Smith, 1838a, 16; saying it was the "breast-plate of Laban"), a set of large spectacles made of seer stones (Chase, 1833, 243; Smith, 1838a, 16), the Liahona, the sword of Laban (Lapham, 1870, 306, 308; Salisbury, 1895, 13), the brass plates of Laban (Salisbury, 1895, 13), the vessel in which the gold was melted, a rolling machine for gold plates, and three balls of gold as large as a fist. Harris, 1833, 253. In addition to the artifacts, I also think we don't pay much attention to the stone box in which they were stored. From the Anthony Sweat article linked to above: Quote Taken from a Stone Box After four years of anxious personal preparation following Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the time had come for Joseph to unearth and retrieve the Nephite record. Around midnight on the evening of September 21, 1827, Joseph asked his mother, Lucy, “if [she] had a chest with a lock and key,”[7] to store the plates in once he retrieved them, but she did not have anything to offer him. Lucy noticed that Joseph’s wife, Emma, was in her riding apparel, and although Joseph didn’t mention it specifically, Lucy deduced that he was taking Emma and leaving to get the plates. Without obtaining consent,[8] Joseph took Joseph Knight’s horse and wagon, and he and Emma left for the Hill Cumorah. Leaving Emma at the bottom of the hill to wait, Joseph went to retrieve the plates from their ancient burial place. Often overlooked, the stone box from which the plates were retrieved is one of the first physical evidences of Joseph’s origin story of the Book of Mormon plates and text. Joseph described the box in which the plates and interpreters were interred: “The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement, in the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.”[9] Meeting the angel Moroni at the site of the stone box, and after having received a sacred charge from the angel that Joseph was now responsible for the plates’ care, Joseph removed the plates from their tomb. Because he had not yet prepared a secure place to lock the plates at home, he initially stored the plates in a hollowed-out birch log on the hill.[10] A few days later, after having obtained a wooden chest from his brother Hyrum to secure the plates, Joseph returned to the Hill Cumorah and took the plates home. Ironically, while much of Joseph’s later persecution may have arisen out of others doubting the existence and possession of golden plates, originally the difficulty was due to the exact opposite: certain persons were convinced he had actually retrieved the record.[11] Part of their certainty was due to their interaction with the place where the plates were buried. Willard Chase and Samuel Lawrence, two local friends of Joseph’s and associates in some of his previous treasure-seeking ventures, were particularly attuned to Joseph’s retrieval of the plates. According to an account by Willard Chase, prior to Joseph’s obtaining the record Joseph had taken Samuel Lawrence to the Hill Cumorah and shown him the spot where the Book of Mormon plates were concealed in the stone box. Lawrence asked Joseph “if he had ever discovered anything with the plates of gold; he said no; he then asked him to look in his stone, to see if there was anything with them. He looked, and said there was nothing; he told him to look again, and see if there was not a large pair of specks with the plates; he looked and soon saw a pair of spectacles, the same with which Joseph says he translated the Book of Mormon.”[12] Although portions of Chase’s account must be read skeptically, Joseph Knight Sr. shared a similar story in his reminiscence, saying Samuel Lawrence “had Bin to the hill and knew about the things in the hill and he was trying to obtain them.”[13] Lawrence and other local treasure hunters, such as Willard Chase, are likely some of those who, because they had seen the place from which the plates came forth, later convinced an inquiring man named David Whitmer that Joseph had obtained the plates from the hill. David Whitmer would later remember: I had conversations with several young men who said that Joseph Smith had certainly golden plates, and that before he attained them he had promised to share with them, but had not done so, and they were very much incensed with him. Said I, ‘how do you know that Joe Smith has the plates?’ They replied: ‘we saw the plates [place] in the hill that he took them out of just as he described it to us before he obtained them.’ These parties were so positive in their statements that I began to believe there must be some foundation for the stories then in circulation all over that part of the country.[14] In another interview Whitmer told a reporter that “the community in which he [Whitmer] lived . . . was alive with excitement in regard to Smith’s finding a great treasure, and they informed him that they knew that Smith had the plates, as they had seen the place that he had taken them from, on the hill Cumorah.”[15] Shortly after Joseph had obtained the plates, Martin Harris and two others also went to the Hill Cumorah to “hunt for some more [stone] boxes.” While this is a later reminiscence and he doesn’t state with certainty whether or not this was the very box the Book of Mormon plates were removed from, Harris claimed, “indeed we found a stone box” that he and the other two persons were excited about. After unsuccessfully trying to remove the box from the hill, they took a crowbar and “broke one corner off the box.” Harris concluded, “Sometime that box will be found, and you will see the corner broken off, then you will know I have told you the truth. Again Brethren as sure as you are standing here and see me just that sure did I see the angel with the golden plates” [16] The stone box from the Hill Cumorah was also apparently left exposed for the display of residents and visitors to Palmyra for decades. In 1893, Elder Edward Stevenson wrote that during a trip to Palmyra “early on a summer’s morning in the year 1870,” he had been shown where the stone box once was by a local resident who lived near the Hill Cumorah. Stevenson said, “Questioning him closely he [the local] stated that he had seen some good sized flat stones that had rolled down and lay near the bottom of the hill. This had occurred after the contents of the box had been removed and these stones were doubtless the ones that formerly composed the box. I felt a strong desire to see these ancient relics and told him I would be much pleased to have him inform me where they were to be found. He stated that they had long since been taken away.” [17] Testimonies and affidavits of local Palmyra residents such as this man, Martin Harris, Samuel Lawrence, and others corroborate Joseph Smith’s testimony of the Book of Mormon relics being found and removed from a stone box he unearthed on the Hill Cumorah. And here: Quote It was reported that David Whitmer had seen the stone box from which the plates were removed. Three times [David Whitmer] has been at the Hill Cumorah and seen the casket that contained the tablets and seerstone. Eventually the casket has been washed down to the foot of the hill, but it was to be seen when he last visited the historic place.[1] Salt Lake Herald (12 August 1875); reprinting from Chicago Times (7 August 1875); cited in Ebbie L V Richardson, "David Whitmer: A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon," (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1952), 156-58. Also in Lyndon Cook (editor), David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Books, 1991), 7. To sum up: 1. It appears that the Three Witnesses also saw/witnessed the other artifacts. 2. It appears that Lucy Mack Smith saw the breastplate glistening through a "thin muslin handkerchief," and could "ascertain its proportions without any difficulty." 3. Per the Anthony Sweat article, Josiah Stowell may have seen the breastplate. Were there any other witnesses to these non-plates artifacts? Thanks, -Smac 3
InCognitus Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 Wow, Joseph Smith sure went to a lot of trouble to make all these fake artifacts (including the plates). And for what? To get himself tarred and feathered, put in jail, and eventually killed by a mob? Seems like a lot of work just to get yourself killed. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 54 minutes ago, smac97 said: I would like to compile references for people who saw/witnessed the artifacts Joseph Smith found other than the Plates. I think these other objects get some short shrift in terms of our attention. Some critics posit that Joseph Smith fabricated the Plates. Fair enough. A motive for doing so is not hard to discern. Joseph as either a pious fraud or a conniving one could have fabricated the Plates to deceive the witnesses. But do critics ever get around to explaining why Joseph would have been motivated to go to all the additional work of fabricating A) the Sword of Laban, B) the Breastplate, and C) the Liahona? Why compound the amount of fabricating work he had to do? I'm curious about what value paying greater attention to these objects would yield. Why would the church want to draw more attention to claims that can't be verified when they really don't add substantially to the restored gospel. Obvious questions arise- where are these objects now? Why weren't these important artifacts ever shown to or examined by experts? Etc. etc. They raise more questions than they answer and even though the church has "answers" to the questions, they aren't necessarily convincing or plausible to the average person. Why would Joseph go through the extra work of fabricating these artifacts? I think some people might compare this question to something like "why did the liar have to make the lie so complicated? Why not keep it simple?" which could be a fair question. But I suspect most of us have known an individual in our lives who lies and digs in deeper and deeper, weaving the lies in complicated fashion just begging to be found out. It's the whole "web of deceit" metaphor. I'm not saying this is what was done, but the question sure isn't any kind of convincing proof. The voice of a few witnesses is hardly compelling evidence. Just think about how many witnesses it would take for us to believe some kind of supernatural claim on Facebook. I could have 5 of my FB friends claim to have been on an alien ship and I still wouldn't believe them...even though I know those witnesses personally.
smac97 Posted October 3, 2022 Author Posted October 3, 2022 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm curious about what value paying greater attention to these objects would yield. Well, they don't seem to jibe well with the Joseph-as-Con-Artist theory. 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Why would the church want to draw more attention to claims that can't be verified when they really don't add substantially to the restored gospel. I wasn't speaking of the Church, but rather for those of us who interact with critics. 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Obvious questions arise- where are these objects now? According to this article, "there is no official documentation about what happened to the Liahona" and "we have very little solid evidence or records of what happened to the {Sword of Laban}" after they were shown to the Three Witnesses. From the same article: "When he was finished translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph gave the translators back to the angel, along with the plates. (See the 2015 Ensign article 'Joseph the Seer.')" I could not find any immediate sources as to what happened to the breastplate. 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Why weren't these important artifacts ever shown to or examined by experts? Etc. etc. I would imagine for the same reasons as the Plates were never "shown to or examined by experts." 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: They raise more questions than they answer I'm okay with that. I would still like to discuss them. 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: and even though the church has "answers" to the questions, they aren't necessarily convincing or plausible to the average person. I'm okay with that. If Christians can get by on faith, and without the Ark of the Covenant, the Rod of Aaron, the Cross, the Crown of Thorns, etc., I think we can get by as well. Preserving provenance for millennia is a tough thing to do. And even if it could be done, I'm not sure it's part of the Plan of Salvation. 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Why would Joseph go through the extra work of fabricating these artifacts? Yes, that is my question. 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think some people might compare this question to something like "why did the liar have to make the lie so complicated? Why not keep it simple?" which could be a fair question. Yes, it could be. So I'd like to see it discussed. 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: But I suspect most of us have known an individual in our lives who lies and digs in deeper and deeper, weaving the lies in complicated fashion just begging to be found out. It's the whole "web of deceit" metaphor. Yes, I get that claim. I just don't understand the reasoning behind it. A flim-flam artist who has already fabricated a set of "gold plates" then fakes a revelation promising to show the Three Witnesses even more artifacts? 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm not saying this is what was done, but the question sure isn't any kind of convincing proof. I am not suggesting that it is "convincing proof." I am examining the naturalistic narratives espoused by critics. Was Joseph smart and hard-working enough to write the text of the Book of Mormon? Or was he, as the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits paint him, "lazy, indolent, ignorant and superstitious?" Did Joseph fabricate the plates himself? If so, when and where? Given his family's dire finances, where did he get the money to buy the metals necessary not only for the plates, but also the breastplate, the Liahona and the Sword of Laban? I suppose it's plausible to claim (speculatively and without evidence, but I digress) that Joseph just found an old sword and passed it off as an ancient relic. But the breastplate? And the Liahona? This all seems like a lot of work with not much of an ROI for the con artist. 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The voice of a few witnesses is hardly compelling evidence. I am okay with you discounting the probative weight of witness statements. I am instead trying to sort out how critics approach the non-plates artifacts. Thanks, -Smac 1
JAHS Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I would like to compile references for people who saw/witnessed the artifacts Joseph Smith found other than the Plates. I think these other objects get some short shrift in terms of our attention. Some critics posit that Joseph Smith fabricated the Plates. Fair enough. A motive for doing so is not hard to discern. Joseph as either a pious fraud or a conniving one could have fabricated the Plates to deceive the witnesses. But do critics ever get around to explaining why Joseph would have been motivated to go to all the additional work of fabricating A) the Sword of Laban, B) the Breastplate, and C) the Liahona? Why compound the amount of fabricating work he had to do? Let's first start with D&C 17, (a revelation "given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris") : Daniel Peterson makes some trenchant remarks about D&C 17 in this video. A partial transcript (the interviewer is "CBF," and Daniel Peterson is "DP") : Book of Mormon Central has an excellent article on this: Is There Evidence That Joseph Smith Possessed a Urim and Thummim and Breastplate? See also this excellent article by Anthony Sweat: Hefted and Handled: Tangible Interactions with Book of Mormon Objects See also this commentary: And this commentary: And here: Daniel Peterson recently commented on the significance of the foregoing statements: Regarding Lucy Mack Smith's interaction with the breastplate referenced above, see here (from the Anthony Sweat article linked to above) : New World Encyclopedia includes a footnote summarizing witness statements about these other artifacts: In addition to the artifacts, I also think we don't pay much attention to the stone box in which they were stored. From the Anthony Sweat article linked to above: And here: To sum up: 1. It appears that the Three Witnesses also saw/witnessed the other artifacts. 2. It appears that Lucy Mack Smith saw the breastplate glistening through a "thin muslin handkerchief," and could "ascertain its proportions without any difficulty." 3. Per the Anthony Sweat article, Josiah Stowell may have seen the breastplate. Were there any other witnesses to these non-plates artifacts? Thanks, -Smac We know Joseph Smith gave the plates back to the angel Moroni, or so he said. Do we assume or know if he gave back the breast plate and Urim and Thummim also?
ttribe Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Well, they don't seem to jibe well with the Joseph-as-Con-Artist theory. They can jibe just fine with him being a con-artist. They could also be evidence in the other direction. They are quite neutral, as far as that question goes. I think you are underestimating the degree to which a con-artist will come up with elaborate props to convince their targets. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Well, they don't seem to jibe well with the Joseph-as-Con-Artist theory. I wasn't speaking of the Church, but rather for those of us who interact with critics. According to this article, "there is no official documentation about what happened to the Liahona" and "we have very little solid evidence or records of what happened to the {Sword of Laban}" after they were shown to the Three Witnesses. From the same article: "When he was finished translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph gave the translators back to the angel, along with the plates. (See the 2015 Ensign article 'Joseph the Seer.')" I could not find any immediate sources as to what happened to the breastplate. I would imagine for the same reasons as the Plates were never "shown to or examined by experts." I'm okay with that. I would still like to discuss them. I'm okay with that. If Christians can get by on faith, and without the Ark of the Covenant, the Rod of Aaron, the Cross, the Crown of Thorns, etc., I think we can get by as well. Preserving provenance for millennia is a tough thing to do. And even if it could be done, I'm not sure it's part of the Plan of Salvation. Yes, that is my question. Yes, it could be. So I'd like to see it discussed. Yes, I get that claim. I just don't understand the reasoning behind it. A flim-flam artist who has already fabricated a set of "gold plates" then fakes a revelation promising to show the Three Witnesses even more artifacts? I am not suggesting that it is "convincing proof." I am examining the naturalistic narratives espoused by critics. Was Joseph smart and hard-working enough to write the text of the Book of Mormon? Or was he, as the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits paint him, "lazy, indolent, ignorant and superstitious?" Did Joseph fabricate the plates himself? If so, when and where? Given his family's dire finances, where did he get the money to buy the metals necessary not only for the plates, but also the breastplate, the Liahona and the Sword of Laban? I suppose it's plausible to claim (speculatively and without evidence, but I digress) that Joseph just found an old sword and passed it off as an ancient relic. But the breastplate? And the Liahona? This all seems like a lot of work with not much of an ROI for the con artist. I am okay with you discounting the probative weight of witness statements. I am instead trying to sort out how critics approach the non-plates artifacts. Thanks, -Smac I'll answer these. IMO Joseph was very smart. I believe he was a charismatic individual and a natural story teller. Having said that, I don't believe he wrote the Book of Mormon but I do believe he narrated the story and has his scribes write it. I believe he was likely a hard worker but like any young person could likely have moments of laziness. And I absolutely believe he was superstitious. Early Mormonism and The Magical World View makes that point, which I think has merit. Personally I would approach the non-plates artifacts as curiosities that don't really matter much. There are so many fantastical stories and claims that have direct impact on the origins of the church I see these as additional fantastical stories that don't have significant impact. The important question is if the plates were real and of the origin that was claimed. The other stuff like the sword and breastplate adds color and interest to the story but not much else. The plates were thought to be important to the translation (though that narrative has changed) but there's no evidence of the plates. OK. An angel took them. A lack of evidence for the ancillary artifacts is just par for the course. If anything I suspect that fact would merely illicit an eye roll from a critic.
smac97 Posted October 3, 2022 Author Posted October 3, 2022 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: They can jibe just fine with him being a con-artist. They could also be evidence in the other direction. They are quite neutral, as far as that question goes. I think the former proposition is substantially less likely than the latter. I think critics have a hard time in rationalizing/explaining how Joseph Smith had the financial means, metalworking skills and resources/infrastructure, etc. to make these artifacts, as well as the motive/benefit for doing so. 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: I think you are underestimating the degree to which a con-artist will come up with elaborate props to convince their targets. A con-artist with substantial time, money, skills/know-how, resources, and so on, perhaps. Joseph seemingly had none of of these things. Thanks, -Smac
HappyJackWagon Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 29 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think the former proposition is substantially less likely than the latter. I think critics have a hard time in rationalizing/explaining how Joseph Smith had the financial means, metalworking skills and resources/infrastructure, etc. to make these artifacts, as well as the motive/benefit for doing so. A con-artist with substantial time, money, skills/know-how, resources, and so on, perhaps. Joseph seemingly had none of of these things. Thanks, -Smac That's assuming all of those artifacts were real and tangible. I recall reading an article about how individuals or even groups can be led via suggestion to see things with their spiritual eyes. I think it was in relation to the pentacostal happenings of Kirtland but I could be wrong. It is especially successful when there is a collaborator and a charismatic leader. Others in the group are more likely to go along because they don't want to look silly or less spiritual etc. So I don't 100% accept that those things were actual physical items although they could have been. I don't know how hard it would have been back in Joseph's day to gain access to a sword or something that looks like a breastplate, particularly when it is only see with a cloth covering it. When it comes to a con-artist I think one has to consider that it was a con, and he didn't have those things, and/or talked someone into letting him borrow some items. I don't know how it went down and it doesn't matter much to me so the only point I'm trying to make that if someone is successful in conning people into believing A then maybe he could be successful into conning people into believing B. What was his motivation? Great question. 3
Analytics Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 Let me see if I get this straight. Around A.D. 400, a Mesoamerican of Jewish ancestry walked from Mesoamerica to upstate New York carrying a stack of golden plates that weighed perhaps 60 pounds. Additionally he carried a breast plate, a set of interpreters, a sword that was stolen from a drunk in Jerusalem 1,000 years earlier, a set of brass plates, the plates of the Book of ether, “more plates containing the records of the wickedness and secret combinations of the people of the world down to the time of their being engraved,” “many other plates,” a brass ball with two spindles that points towards the promised land, the vessel in which the gold was melted, a rolling machine for gold plates, and three balls of gold as large as a fist. After Moroni carried all of this 3,000 miles, he buried all of these things in a hill conveniently near where Joseph Smith would be living 1,400 years later. But that’s just the beginning. According to the article “Cumorah’s Cave” in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Hyrum Smith told W. W. Phelps that their was an entire room inside the Hill Cumorah that also contained Aaron’s breastplate (apparently Nephi brought that to the new world and handed it down to Moroni, too?). Heber C. Kimball said there were more records in that room than ten men can carry. In fact, Heber C. Kimball said there were multiple cells in the Hill Cumorah, each with “records upon records piled upon tables.” Joseph Smith told Brigham Young that this cave contained “tons of Choice Treasures & records.” Brigham young said Oliver Cowdery had been to this cave three times, and that that is where the golden plates are now. In fact, according to Brigham Young there was more treasure in the cave “than a six-mule team could draw.” Three years later, Brigham Young clarified that there were “more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls.” Hyrum Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Don Carlos Smith, and Samuel Smith all saw this, along with Joseph. In his sober credibility, David Whitmer said in 1877 that “science and mineral rods testify” that this cave really is there. 1
Analytics Posted October 3, 2022 Posted October 3, 2022 33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: That's assuming all of those artifacts were real and tangible. I recall reading an article about how individuals or even groups can be led via suggestion to see things with their spiritual eyes. I think it was in relation to the pentacostal happenings of Kirtland but I could be wrong. It is especially successful when there is a collaborator and a charismatic leader. Others in the group are more likely to go along because they don't want to look silly or less spiritual etc.... Right. Below is the story, in Joseph Smith's own words, as quoted by Smac, about how the three witnesses "saw" the golden plates. This doesn't come across as people seeing a tangible object that exists in the real world. "According to previous arrangement, I commenced vocal prayer to our Heavenly Father, and was followed by each of the others in succession. We did not at the first trial, however, obtain any answer or manifestation of divine favor in our behalf. We again observed the same order of prayer, each calling on and praying fervently to God in rotation, but with the same result as before. "Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly withdrew from us, and we knelt down again, and had not been many minutes engaged in prayer, when presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of. He turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discern the engravings thereon distinctly. He then addressed himself to David Whitmer, and said, 'David, blessed is the Lord, and he that keeps His commandments;' when, immediately afterwards, we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.' "I now left David and Oliver, and went in pursuit of Martin Harris, whom I found at a considerable distance, fervently engaged in prayer. He soon told me, however, that he had not yet prevailed with the Lord, and earnestly requested me to join him in prayer, that he also might realize the same blessings which we had just received. We accordingly joined in prayer, and ultimately obtained our desires, for before we had yet finished, the same vision was opened to our view, at least it was again opened to me, and I once more beheld and heard the same things; whilst at the same moment, Martin Harris cried out, apparently in an ecstasy of joy, "'Tis enough; 'tis enough; mine eyes have beheld; mine eyes have beheld;" There is no reason to go to the trouble of creating an artifact so that people can "see" things in the way that Martin Harris saw these plates. 1
JustAnAustralian Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Let me see if I get this straight. Around A.D. 400, a Mesoamerican of Jewish ancestry walked from Mesoamerica to upstate New York carrying a stack of golden plates that weighed perhaps 60 pounds. Additionally he carried a breast plate, a set of interpreters, a sword that was stolen from a drunk in Jerusalem 1,000 years earlier, a set of brass plates, the plates of the Book of ether, “more plates containing the records of the wickedness and secret combinations of the people of the world down to the time of their being engraved,” “many other plates,” a brass ball with two spindles that points towards the promised land, the vessel in which the gold was melted, a rolling machine for gold plates, and three balls of gold as large as a fist. After Moroni carried all of this 3,000 miles, he buried all of these things in a hill conveniently near where Joseph Smith would be living 1,400 years later. I don't see why he would need all that. All he would need to carry if they were buried at the time is the completed B.o.M, the sword, breastplate, Liahona, and interpreters. Being a presumable fit person, he could have made that journey quite easily. The cave visits were almost certainly visions since everything inside was light enough to see everything perfectly (which wouldn't happen in a cave), and the hill near Josephs house wouldn't support a cave anyway. Edited October 4, 2022 by JustAnAustralian
Tacenda Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-spectacles-the-stone-the-hat-and-the-book-a-twenty-first-century-believers-view-of-the-book-of-mormon-translation/ Was reading this the other day, but it most likely doesn't have anymore research than what has been presented.
Duncan Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 The CHL put this up recently about these things https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/ask-us-top-reference-questions-about-book-of-mormon-artifacts?lang=eng 3
Analytics Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 13 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: I don't see why he would need all that. All he would need to carry if they were buried at the time is the completed B.o.M, the sword, breastplate, Liahona, and interpreters. Being a presumable fit person, he could have made that journey quite easily. The cave visits were almost certainly visions since everything inside was light enough to see everything perfectly (which wouldn't happen in a cave), and the hill near Josephs house wouldn't support a cave anyway. It isn't a matter of what Joseph Smith "needed." It's a matter of the artifacts that the witnesses say Joseph Smith had in his possession. If you are going to believe Martin Harris when he said he saw the plates, why not believe him when he said he also saw the vessel in which the gold was melted, a rolling machine for gold plates, and three balls of gold as large as a fist? But what was really needed for Joseph Smith to have in his literal physical possession? Moroni didn't need to take the plates to New York so that Martin Harris could work himself up in prayer and finally tell Joseph, "Tis enough; 'tis enough; mine eyes have beheld." How much would the completed BoM, the breastplate, the sword, the Liahona, and interpreters weigh? 100 pounds? Would he also have had to carry water, food, and other supplies? As a reference point, Marines are famous for carrying heavy ruck sacks on missions. I've heard that a typical pack might be 70 pounds, and depending upon the mission might be as high as 100 pounds. But carrying that much for over 4,000 miles? It's conceivable I guess, but what's the point? As another reference point, the Appalachian Trail in the United States goes from Georgia to Maine, and spans less than half of the distance Moroni would have walked. When typical people hike the trail, they famously start out with heavy packs that might be on the order of 40 pounds. After a few days, they realize that carrying so much gear is not worth it, and end up leaving on the side of the trail everything but the very barest necessities in order to minimize the weight. Being able to lift 80 pounds and easily hold it for 5 minutes is exponentially easier than carrying it for 5 miles, or 10, or 100, or 5,000. I concede that God's ways are not man's ways. But it is obvious to me that this story of these artifacts being in upstate New York is based on the belief that the events of the BoM took place there. There is tremendous tension between the Limited Geography Model and the belief that multiple BoM artifacts were buried in New York. 2
ttribe Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 18 hours ago, smac97 said: I think the former proposition is substantially less likely than the latter. I think critics have a hard time in rationalizing/explaining how Joseph Smith had the financial means, metalworking skills and resources/infrastructure, etc. to make these artifacts, as well as the motive/benefit for doing so. A con-artist with substantial time, money, skills/know-how, resources, and so on, perhaps. Joseph seemingly had none of of these things. Thanks, -Smac Those are modifications to your original assertion, which is fine, but the original assertion merely stated that the existence of the artifacts didn't "jibe" with a con-man theory. That simply isn't true, by itself. As to the motive/benefit, I should that would be self-evident. More evidence is better evidence for the average person. Moreover, I believe it has been well documented that Joseph Smith originally used his seer stone for treasure hunting activities; the existence of the plates and the attendant artifacts would not only validate his religious claims as to the genuine origins of the Book of Mormon, but also as to the skills he claimed to have prior to the arrival of the Book of Mormon. He could certainly seek vindication and gain/re-gain credibility in the eyes of many. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 17 hours ago, Analytics said: Right. Below is the story, in Joseph Smith's own words, as quoted by Smac, about how the three witnesses "saw" the golden plates. This doesn't come across as people seeing a tangible object that exists in the real world. "According to previous arrangement, I commenced vocal prayer to our Heavenly Father, and was followed by each of the others in succession. We did not at the first trial, however, obtain any answer or manifestation of divine favor in our behalf. We again observed the same order of prayer, each calling on and praying fervently to God in rotation, but with the same result as before. "Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly withdrew from us, and we knelt down again, and had not been many minutes engaged in prayer, when presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of. He turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discern the engravings thereon distinctly. He then addressed himself to David Whitmer, and said, 'David, blessed is the Lord, and he that keeps His commandments;' when, immediately afterwards, we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.' "I now left David and Oliver, and went in pursuit of Martin Harris, whom I found at a considerable distance, fervently engaged in prayer. He soon told me, however, that he had not yet prevailed with the Lord, and earnestly requested me to join him in prayer, that he also might realize the same blessings which we had just received. We accordingly joined in prayer, and ultimately obtained our desires, for before we had yet finished, the same vision was opened to our view, at least it was again opened to me, and I once more beheld and heard the same things; whilst at the same moment, Martin Harris cried out, apparently in an ecstasy of joy, "'Tis enough; 'tis enough; mine eyes have beheld; mine eyes have beheld;" There is no reason to go to the trouble of creating an artifact so that people can "see" things in the way that Martin Harris saw these plates. Do you recall the timing of this? Specifically, wasn't this vision received at a time when Joseph was in physical possession of the plates, prior to the angel taking them away? I don't recall but I seem to remember that Joseph had possession which would make one wonder about why a vision was needed to see what he already possessed tangibly. 2
Analytics Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, ttribe said: Those are modifications to your original assertion, which is fine, but the original assertion merely stated that the existence of the artifacts didn't "jibe" with a con-man theory. That simply isn't true, by itself. As to the motive/benefit, I should that would be self-evident. More evidence is better evidence for the average person. Moreover, I believe it has been well documented that Joseph Smith originally used his seer stone for treasure hunting activities; the existence of the plates and the attendant artifacts would not only validate his religious claims as to the genuine origins of the Book of Mormon, but also as to the skills he claimed to have prior to the arrival of the Book of Mormon. He could certainly seek vindication and gain/re-gain credibility in the eyes of many. Exactly. I'm on record as saying I suspect Joseph Smith had some artifact of the plates. I don't believe this fake artifact was a particularly good or convincing artifact--I believe that is why he kept it wrapped up and hidden. I think he may have shown this one artifact to the eight witnesses, but their testimonies are in desperate need of serious cross examination and shouldn't be taken at face value. As far as everything else? Nah--that was all imagined or made up. Here is a personal anecdote that illustrates where I'm coming from. When I was in seminary back in the day, the instructor announced he had a stack of gold plates hidden under the lectern at the front of the class. We were all excited to see them. He picked 11 names at random and invited us to see. I was lucky enough to be chosen. I and 10 others went to the front of the class and looked at the plates. We used our Mormon vernacular to describe what we saw. We thumbed through the pages. They had the appearance of gold. They had ancient-looking writing on them. They were bound together with rings. The back section of the book was sealed and we couldn't thumb through those pages. The instructor wouldn't let anybody else see the plates. They left quite frustrated that these amazing gold plates were there, but they couldn't see them. But that was the point--because 11 of their fellow classmates testified to seeing these plates, they were forced to believe the plates were real. Here is the rest of the story that would have come out had a skilled attorney cross-examined the witnesses to the seminary gold plates. The gold plates were obviously not ancient, and were constructed with the following things: Plywood Gold-colored spray paint A Sharpie to write the "ancient" characters on the painted plywood Extra-large nickel-plated binder rings Some Elmer's glue to "seal" the sealed pages of plywood together With those materials and a saw and a drill, in a couple of hours anybody could create the "gold plates" I witnessed. Despite the fact that I and the other witnesses knew that the artifact wasn't the least bit authentic and didn't take hardly any time or money to make, everyone else in the class walked out with a sense of wonder, thinking that something really special was behind the lectern. Just as my testimony of seeing something shouldn't be taken at face value, the testimonies of the actual witnesses shouldn't be taken at face value, either. Edited October 4, 2022 by Analytics 2
Analytics Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Do you recall the timing of this? Specifically, wasn't this vision received at a time when Joseph was in physical possession of the plates, prior to the angel taking them away? I don't recall but I seem to remember that Joseph had possession which would make one wonder about why a vision was needed to see what he already possessed tangibly. Exactly. The official account is that the three witnesses had their visions sometime in June of 1829, and the eight witnesses saw the plates on July 2, 1829. If you believe the three witnesses saw the actual tangible plates, then apparently Moroni went to the hollow log where Joseph had the plates hidden, retrieved the plates, showed them to Oliver Cowdrey and David Whitmer, and then an hour or two showed them to Martin Harris once he had enough faith. Then Moroni put the plates back in the hollow log. Several days later, Joseph retrieved the plates form the hollow log and showed them to the eight witnesses. Then shortly after that, Moroni took the plates away again. Edited October 4, 2022 by Analytics 2
smac97 Posted October 4, 2022 Author Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, ttribe said: Quote I think the former proposition is substantially less likely than the latter. I think critics have a hard time in rationalizing/explaining how Joseph Smith had the financial means, metalworking skills and resources/infrastructure, etc. to make these artifacts, as well as the motive/benefit for doing so. A con-artist with substantial time, money, skills/know-how, resources, and so on, perhaps. Joseph seemingly had none of of these things. Those are modifications to your original assertion, which is fine, but the original assertion merely stated that the existence of the artifacts didn't "jibe" with a con-man theory. That simply isn't true, by itself. I had said: "Well, they don't seem to jibe well with the Joseph-as-Con-Artist theory." That's a conclusion. By me. I think it is correct. You disagree, which is fine, but declaring that it "simply isn't true" is far more conclusory than my relatively restrained comment that "they don't seem to jibe well." 5 hours ago, ttribe said: As to the motive/benefit, I should that would be self-evident. With respect, it's not. Or if it is, it is pretty superficial. From Daniel C. Peterson: Quote The Three Witnesses As is usually done, let us consider the Three Witnesses first, and examine the variety and complexity of their accounts. Over the course of that two-day interview with us about a year before his death, Richard Anderson emphasized the differences between Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, viewing them as representative human types: You’ve got Oliver Cowdery, who is trained in education equivalently to today. And he’s a white-collar man and he’s a thinker and analyzer. Now, if you wanted to get the best three representatives of the human race, you certainly include him. But he’s in the minority, even today. … David Whitmer is a tradesman; he’s a businessman. … He ran a business for fifty years and kept his profits in the black instead of in the red. And then there’s Martin Harris and he’s the religious fanatic — using the terminology of some people who knew him. They have a hard time with Martin Harris because he is a believer. And sometimes he believes in too much — maybe things that we wouldn’t now. … And Martin Harris gets criticized for being a true believer, but that’s part of the logic of having three witnesses who were representative of the human race.10 So you’ve got somebody who’s what you would call an intellectual, somebody who’s a pragmatic businessman, and somebody that is a true believer.11 So the very selection of these men as witnesses, to me, is faith promoting as a historian.12 [T]he Three Witnesses were in fact a cross section of their community.13 Thus, to follow the framework I have introduced, these witnesses were part of a “jury of peers.” The differences between them in education and life experience can be argued as ensuring that representation. [Page xiv]According to David Whitmer, their encounter with the angel and the plates took place toward the end of June 1829, at about 11:00 am.14 What was the nature of that encounter? What did these three very different men claim to have seen and heard? They saw the plates. The audible voice of God declared to them that the plates had been translated by divine gift and power. They saw the engravings on the plates. They saw an angel who had descended from heaven. The voice of God commanded them to bear record of their experience. The miraculous nature of the claimed experience of the Three Witnesses is clear. They did not simply go into the woods and see an unusual metal object, they saw an angel. Indeed, they heard the voice of God from heaven. David Whitmer, who lived well past the other witnesses into 1888 (and whom Richard Anderson calls “the most interviewed witness”) described the atmosphere in which all this occurred: [A]ll at once a light came down from above us and encircled us for quite a little distance around, and the angel stood before us. … [W]e were overshadowed by a light. It was not like the light of the sun, nor like that of a fire, but more glorious and beautiful. It extended away round us, I cannot tell how far … All of a sudden I beheld a dazzlingly brilliant light that surpassed in brightness even the sun at noonday, and which seemed to envelop the woods for a considerable distance around. Simultaneous with the light came a strange entrancing influence which permeated me so powerfully that I felt chained to the spot, while I also experienced a sensation of joy absolutely indescribable.15 I beheld the glory of the Lord.16 Simple, ordinary mundane forgery — the work, say, of a cunning and conniving blacksmith — could not account for such claims. It could not create an unearthly light, let alone produce an apparent angel or a divine voice from heaven. [Page xv]Moreover, as Richard L. Anderson points out, “Those who see the witnesses as victims of simple deception have overlooked the complexity of the experience promised to them, and their later spontaneous mention of seeing the other ancient objects with the plates.”17 Consider, for instance, the words spoken to the Three Witnesses in a June 1829 revelation given just prior to their experience with the angel and the plates: Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea. And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old. And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God. And this you shall do that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., may not be destroyed, that I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work. (D&C 17:1-4) In fact, even though the official statement doesn’t mention it, they did see all of those things. David Whitmer, for example, said in various interviews: [The angel] showed to us the plates, the sword of Laban, the Directors [that is, the Liahona], the Urim and Thummim, and other records. … [T]here appeared, as it were, a table, with many records on it — besides the plates of the Book of Mormon, also the sword of Laban, the Directors, and the Interpreters. I saw them as plain as I see this bed [striking his hand upon the bed beside him]. … I saw the Interpreters in the holy vision; they looked like whitish stones put in the rim of a bow — looked like spectacles, only much larger.18 In other words, they saw a collection of concrete and tangible objects, not just the plates. Not just the angel and the plates. Richard Anderson’s comment is appropriate here: Nothing short of biblical Christianity furnishes such a concrete statement of supernatural reality. One cannot dismiss the experience easily, for each man so testifying impressed his community with his capacity and unwavering honesty, and all three consistently reaffirmed the experience in hundreds of interviews throughout their lives.19 The claim of the Three Witnesses is more complex still, as they had these experiences in two distinct groups: First, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer saw the plates, the angel, the sword, the breastplate, the Urim and Thummim, and the Liahona, and heard the attesting voice of God. And then, separately, Joseph Smith and Martin Harris had the same experience. If it was a hallucination, it had to be generated and experienced not just once, but twice. And here: Quote DP cont’d: David Whitmer, in one interview, says, ‘There appeared, as it were, a table with many records on it, besides the plates of The Book of Mormon, also the sword of Laban, the directors and the interpreters. I saw them as plain as I see this bed,’ and he strikes his hand upon the bed beside him. And to me that’s pretty impressive because people said, ‘Well, maybe Joseph created plates.’ That’s really dubious, right, to begin with. But he must’ve been running some sort of specialized metal foundry or something like that to have produced the Liahona, the sword of Laban, the breastplate, all these other things that he’s got to produce IF he’s faking it. And he promises he’ll show them and then he does. They see all those things and hear the voice of God and see the angel. That’s pretty impressive. CBF: Right. I think that’s an aspect that we kind of brush over a lot in church. Obviously, the plates are more, like influential, because it’s the book of scripture, but how cool that they were able to see all those other items, all those other historical artifacts. I think that’s incredible. DP: And it greatly complicates Joseph’s task if he’s making these things up, or any group of conspirators, they’ve got to produce all sorts of things. And I ask myself, in the first place, what’s the point, if you want to be a fake prophet just give a revelation. Why invoke all of these material objects you’ve got to now produce and make convincing, and show to people. It’s just making the job much, much harder. But it also, to my mind, makes the explanation of it much, much harder for critics. CBF: Mm Hm. DP: I remember a friend, an academic friend, was saying, ‘What was the point of the plates? I mean, it’s not clear that Joseph absolutely needed to be looking at them in order to receive the revealed translation. They had to be near to him, they didn’t always have to be right there.’ And I said, ‘Well for one thing, they’re an absolutely indigestible lump in the throats of people like you who want to say that he just made it up.’ I mean, he’s got all these objects he’s got to produce. It takes it out of the realm of the subjective, it’s not just Joseph having this happy little fantasy that he’s created for himself. No, there are all these heavy objects that other people see and heft and move around. Emma has to move the plates around. Lucy Mack Smith feels the breastplate through a cloth, maybe even sees it. She said she could see the glint of the metal through the thin linen cloth. That’s a really complicated thing, and so I’m imagining, did none of the neighbors notice that Joseph had this metal foundry going on there south of Palmyra, smoke belching out as he pounded out his plates and made his breastplate and made all these specialty objects. Where did learn all this metallurgy? CBF: Right. DP: Just, it’s not plausible. CBF: So why do you think the angel even brought those if just the plates would have been enough? DP: I think for one thing, it does make the counter-explanation harder because you’ve got so many more things to account for, things that are way beyond the capacity of Joseph Smith to do. Now, by the way there was an idea floating around early on that maybe Oliver Cowdrey was a blacksmith or something like that and he had the ability to do it. Well, what we know about Oliver Cowdrey is that he was a fairly slightly built person– not your image of the village blacksmith with the broad and sinewy arms and all that sort of thing, pounding things out with a sledgehammer. That’s not Oliver. Oliver is a bookish sort of guy. He becomes a lawyer, he’s a politician, he’s a writer, he’s an intellectual. So, they’re looking around at first. They drop it pretty quickly because Oliver just isn’t possible as a blacksmith that’s just not gonna fly. So people have basically ignored that issue, but I think it’s a really important one. You are, of course, at liberty to just throw your hands up and decline to address all the incongruities inherent in naturalistic explanations for these things. But I think the evidence needs to be accounted for. In this particular context, David Whitmer's statements and overall posture really need to be accounted for. 5 hours ago, ttribe said: More evidence is better evidence for the average person. I can go along with that. But the "more evidence" would have entailed an awful lot of work, only to have these other artifacts shown to three other people. And not just a lot more work, but also a lot more time and money and materials and skills and facilities. And yet all this was, by your reckoning, readily accomplished by Joseph Smith without anyone catching on? All this time / money / materials / facilities / metalworking to show these other artifacts to three people. 5 hours ago, ttribe said: Moreover, I believe it has been well documented that Joseph Smith originally used his seer stone for treasure hunting activities; the existence of the plates and the attendant artifacts would not only validate his religious claims as to the genuine origins of the Book of Mormon, but also as to the skills he claimed to have prior to the arrival of the Book of Mormon. He could certainly seek vindication and gain/re-gain credibility in the eyes of many. Huh. From FAIR: Quote Money digging was a popular, common and accepted practice in their frontier culture Joseph Smith and some members of his family participated in "money digging" or looking for buried treasure as a youth. This was a common and accepted practice in their frontier culture, though the Smiths do not seem to have been involved to the extent claimed by some of the exaggerated attacks upon them by former neighbors. In the young Joseph Smith's time and place, "money digging" was a popular, and sometimes respected activity. When Joseph was 16, the Palmyra Herald printed such remarks. The local newspapers reported on "money digging" activities "digging for money hid in the earth is a very common thing and in this state it is even considered as honorable and profitable employment" "One gentleman...digging...ten to twelve years, found a sufficient quantity of money to build him a commodious house. "another...dug up...fifty thousand dollars!" [2] And, in 1825 the Wayne Sentinel in Palmyra reported that buried treasure had been found "by the help of a mineral stone, (which becomes transparent when placed in a hat and the light excluded by the face of him who looks into it)." [3] The Smith's attitude toward treasure digging was similar to a modern attitudes toward gambling, or buying a lottery ticket Given the financial difficulties under which the Smith family labored, it would hardly be surprising that they might hope for such a reversal in their fortunes. Richard Bushman has compared the Smith's attitude toward treasure digging with a modern attitudes toward gambling, or buying a lottery ticket. Bushman points out that looking for treasure had little stigma attached to it among all classes in the 17th century, and continued to be respectable among the lower classes into the 18th and 19th. [4] Despite the claims of critics, it is not clear that Joseph and his family saw their activities as "magical." ... MOTIVES AND EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT It is currently[10] in debate what Joseph's motives were and how much he was involved. Richard Bushman has written: At present, a question remains about how involved Joseph Smith was in folk magic. Was he enthusiastically pursuing treausre seeking as a business in the 1820s, or was he a somewhat reluctnat participant, egged on by his father?[11] Was his woldview fundamentally shaped by folk traditions? I think there is substantial evidence of his reluctance, and, in my opinion, the evidence for extensive involvement is tenuous. But this is a matter of degree. No one denies that magic was there, especially iun the mid 1820s. Smith never repudiated folk traditions; he continued to use the seer stone until late in life and used it in the translation process.[12] It certainly had an influence on his outlook, but it was peripheral--not central. Biblical Christianity was the overwhelming influence in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Folk magic was in the mix but was not the basic ingredient.[13][14] What we do know is that after the Angel Moroni's appearance in 1823, Joseph began to turn away from treasure seeking. Again from Richard Bushman: Joseph Jr. never repudiated the seer stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end. But after 1823, he began to orient himself away from treasure and toward translation. Martin Harris, another early supporter, remembered Joseph saying that "the angel told him he must quite the company of the money-diggers. That there were wicked men among them. He must have no more to do with them. He must not lie, nor swear, nor seal." After 1823, he continued to be involved in treasure expeditions but not as the instigator or leader; perhaps he resisted by dragging his feet. William Stafford depicts Joseph Sr. hunting for gold and going back to the house to seek further instructions from Joseph Jr., as if the son was trying to stay out of the picture while the father pushed on. In 1825, when the family needed money, Joseph Jr. agreed to help Stowell find the Spanish gold, but with misgivings. Lucy said of Stowell's operation that "Joseph endeavored to divert him from his vain pursuit." Alva hale, a son in the household where the Smiths stayed in Harmony while digging for Stowell, said Joseph Jr. told him that the "gift in seeing with a stone" was "a gift from God" but that " 'peeping' was all d—d nonsense"; he had been deceived in his treasure-seeking, but he did not intend to deceive anyone else. By this time, Joseph apparently felt that "seeing" with a sone was the work of a "seer," a religious term, while "peeping" or "glass-looking" was fraudulent.[15] So, in summary, we may say that: Joseph found a seer stone in 1822 and may have used it to look for treasure. Many people believed that he could see things in the stone. There are testimonials that suggest that he could see things in the stone yet no record that he could find any treasure. His motives, cosmological influences, and extent of involvement for early treasure seeking (1822-25) are still in debate. His motives for his later treasure seeking (1825-26) are to help with finances of his family. Beginning in 1823, after the claimed appearance of the angel Moroni, Joseph oriented himself away from treasure seeking. His scriptural and revelatory productions were largely based in Biblical Christianity. Folk magic was a peripheral ingredient to his work (and there is even explicit condemnation of magic in those scriptural productions [Alma 1:32; 3 Nephi 21:16; Mormon 1:19; 2:10; Doctrine and Covenants 63:17; Doctrine and Covenants 76:103) From Richard L. Bushman: Quote Church scholars now acknowledge that he had a seer stone and did look for lost objects as a young man. The difference is that since Thomas and Butler published their research, folk magic is no longer toxic. It was too commonplace to be scandalous. Magic and Christianity did not seem at odds with one another. The combination was altogether too common in the nineteenth century for it to invalidate Joseph Smith’s more conventional religious claims. In Mormonism and for many Christians, folk traditions and religion blend. To call the two incongruous seems more like a matter of religious taste than a necessary conclusion. From the Church: Quote Joseph Smith’s critics often tried to disparage him by calling him a money digger or a treasure seeker. Rather than deny the charge, Joseph acknowledged in his official history that Josiah Stowell had hired him in 1825 to assist in a treasure-seeking venture in northern Pennsylvania. Stowell wanted his help because Joseph was reputed by some of his neighbors to be a “seer”—someone who could look into a special stone and find lost or hidden objects. “Seeing” and “seers” were part of the culture in which Joseph Smith grew up. Some people in the early 19th century believed it was possible for gifted individuals to see lost objects by means of material objects such as stones. Joseph Smith and his family, like many around them, accepted these familiar folk practices. In the 1820s, a fascination with purported Spanish treasure deposits led prospectors like Josiah Stowell to enlist the aid of seers like Joseph in their search for treasure. Stowell trusted Joseph, sought his assistance in seeking treasure, and even took his advice to finally give up the hunt. Joseph Smith Sr. considered his son’s ability sacred and hoped he would cease using it to look for earthly treasures. As Joseph prepared to translate the Book of Mormon, he was commanded to have nothing further to do with those who sought treasure and instead use his gift to translate and seek revelation. Though it was not uncommon in Joseph Smith’s time and place to encounter people who claimed to use stones to search for lost or hidden objects, using a seer stone to translate an ancient record was unheard of. God gave Joseph Smith power to translate the Book of Mormon, redirecting Joseph’s use of the seer stone toward work of a spiritual nature. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 4, 2022 by smac97 3
HappyJackWagon Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Analytics said: I believe the official account is that the three witnesses had their visions sometime in June of 1829, and the eight witnesses saw the plates on July 2, 1829. If you believe the three witnesses saw the actual tangible plates, then apparently Moroni went to the hollow log where Joseph had the plates hidden, retrieved the plates, showed them to Oliver Cowdrey and David Whitmer, and then an hour or two showed them to Martin Harris once he had enough faith. Then Moroni put the plates back in the hollow log. Several days later, Joseph retrieved the plates form the hollow log and showed them to the eight witnesses. Then shortly after that, Moroni took the plates away again. That's what I thought. A corollary to SMAC's question about why would JS go through so much effort to manufacture evidence, might be something like, Why would God go through so much effort to make the narrative of artifacts and witnesses and translation so complicated and in(un)credible when something more simple would have sufficed. One might wonder if it is more plausible that God, in all of his goodness and wisdom, would orchestrate the events that create such a muddy and unbelievable narrative OR if there is an unreliable human element which is more likely to blame. Edited October 4, 2022 by HappyJackWagon 2
Analytics Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: That's what I thought. A corollary to SMAC's question about why would JS go through so much effort to manufacture evidence, might be something like, Why would God go through so much effort to make the narrative of artifacts and witnesses and translation so complicated and in(un)credible when something more simple would have sufficed. Well put. If an unbiased adjudicator were evaluating all this, he would need to weigh a few things--the unlikeliness that these artifacts are authentic, the unlikeliness that sincere and astute witnesses were duped by authentic-looking forgeries, and the unlikeliness that there was a lot of deception and gullibility going on in the Smith and Whitmer families. Smac's point seems to be that adding more implausible artifacts to the list of things these same folks allegedly saw greatly reduces the odds that sincere and astute witnesses were duped by authentic-looking forgeries. I agree with that. But it also reduces the likelihood that any of these authentic-looking treasures really existed. The net effect is that throwing in the additional stories of additional artifacts greatly increases credence in the theory that the whole thing is best explained by storytelling and gullibility. 1
smac97 Posted October 4, 2022 Author Posted October 4, 2022 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: A corollary to SMAC's question about why would JS go through so much effort to manufacture evidence, might be something like, Why would God go through so much effort to make the narrative of artifacts and witnesses and translation so complicated and in(un)credible when something more simple would have sufficed. I don't think "the narrative of artifacts and witnesses" is complicated at all. It's pretty straightforward, actually. As for the "the narrative of ... translation," we don't really have much of an explanation apart from being obtained and translated "by the gift and power of God." Again, this is not "complicated." As for "in(un)credible" versus "something more simple," I think the present narrative is pretty "simple." Joseph showed the Plates to two sets of witnesses, one of which saw them in "miraculous" circumstances (involving an angel, the voice of God, etc.) and the other seeing them in mundane circumstances. Analytics can only bring himself to "think" that Joseph "may have shown" the Plates to the Eight Witnesses. The reticence here is interesting. Joseph fabricated the Plates but then possibly did not show them to the Eight Witnesses? And the Eight Witnesses nevertheless went along with their names being used to attest to the physical reality of the plates? And then in and after 1838, when the Whitmers and Hiram Page became estranged from Joseph Smith, none of them bothered to repudiate their witness statements? Analytics also states that "their testimonies are in desperate need of serious cross examination." Um, what? How does one cross-examine a written statement? Moreover, the statement, all 148 words of it, is a model of simplicity, and contravenes your suggestion that God could/should have gone with "something more simple": Quote Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it. I don't think they could have been more succinct. Analytics also asserts that their statement "shouldn't be taken at face value." Heavy-laden with presuppositions and value judgments is this is, it's utility is not immediately apparent. These men were percipient witnesses to an event. And contrary to Analytics' implication, their statement has been heavily scrutinized, as has the credibility of the witnesses themselves. From Richard L. Anderson: Quote The lives of the eleven witnesses are well documented; each was questioned closely about his natural and supernatural experiences. The documents on their lives and testimonies are so numerous that they could fill volumes:1 my files include reports from about 200 individuals who heard one or more Book of Mormon witnesses, some of which virtually reproduce their words. Strong and clear support of their 1830 statements is found in all responsible reports from the eleven witnesses, though there are minor discrepancies on details. ... From the surviving personal writings, readers of this article have seen the direct words of six witnesses as they reported their experiences with the angel and the plates. Their words display a remarkable harmony with each other and with the Prophet's own history. Whether near Joseph Smith or separated by time and distance, they sustain his description of the sacred gold plates and the divine revelations contained in them. The message of those written comments is captured by the final sentence of the Testimony of Eight Witnesses: "And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it." If there is evidence against the credibility and integrity of the witnesses, we can certainly review it. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted October 4, 2022 Author Posted October 4, 2022 11 minutes ago, Analytics said: Well put. If an unbiased adjudicator were evaluating all this, I don't think "all this" is intended for "an unbiased adjudicator." It is intended for those who "desire to believe" (Alma 32:27). 11 minutes ago, Analytics said: he would need to weigh a few things-- Yes, he would. He would also need to examine presuppositions that might taint the notion of being "unbiased." 11 minutes ago, Analytics said: the unlikeliness that these artifacts are authentic, See? Presuppositions from the start. 11 minutes ago, Analytics said: the unlikeliness that sincere and astute witnesses were duped by authentic-looking forgeries, Your theory is that the witnesses colluded with Joseph? That they lied? I'm not sure what you are saying here. 11 minutes ago, Analytics said: and the unlikeliness that there was a lot of deception and gullibility going on in the Smith and Whitmer families. Did you mean to say "likeliness" here? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. In any event, the "adjudicator" would indeed examine the historical record to ascertain as much information about the credibility of the witnesses. That has been done. A lot. 11 minutes ago, Analytics said: Smac's point seems to be that adding more implausible artifacts to the list of things these same folks allegedly saw greatly reduces the odds that sincere and astute witnesses were duped by authentic-looking forgeries. I agree with that. My point is more about the "likeliness" of Joseph Smith going using a lot of time, money, effort, materials, facilities, and development of extensive metalworking skills to fabricate these other artifacts, and doing all this in addition to fabricating the Plates, no less. So your supposition ("As far as everything else? Nah--that was all imagined or made up") would, in that context, make sense. But that creates a different set of added complexities for your position. You are positing that David Whitmer was not "imagining or making up" things when he attested to seeing the Plates, but he was "imagining or making up" things as to witnessing everything else (the angel, the voice of God, the other artifacts)? How do you get there? 11 minutes ago, Analytics said: But it also reduces the likelihood that any of these authentic-looking treasures really existed. It does? We have David Whitmer's statement about seeing these other artifacts: Quote "We not only saw the plates of the Book of Mormon but also the brass plates, the plates of the Book of Ether, the plates containing the records of the wickedness and secret combinations of the people of the world down to the time of their being engraved, and many other plates ... there appeared as it were, a table with many records or plates upon it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon, also the Sword of Laban, the Directors i.e., the ball which Lehi had-and the Interpreters [Urim and Thummim]. I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking the bed beside him with his hand), and I heard the voice of the Lord, as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life declaring that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God." (1878 interview between Orson Pratt and David Whitmer, recorded in Book of Mormon Compendium, pp. 55-56) We also have Lucy Mack Smith's detailed description of the breastplate: Quote Detailed descriptions were also given for the breastplate. As Lucy explained, It was concave on one side and convex on the other, and extended from the neck downwards as far as the center of the stomach of a man of extraordinary size. It had four straps of the same material for the purpose of fastening it to the breast, two of which ran back to go over the shoulders, and the other two were designed to fasten to the hips. They were just the width of two of my fingers (for I measured them), and they had holes in the end of them to be convenient in fastening.8 Lucy not only saw, but also physically held the breastplate. She explained, “I have … carried in my hands the sacred breastplate. It is composed of pure gold, and is made to fit the breast very exactly.”9 In another account, she said it had “glistening metal,” and she estimated its worth to be “at least five hundred dollars.”10 Martin Harris described the "interpreters": Quote Martin Harris said they “were about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eighths of an inch thick at the center; but not so thick at the edges where they came into the bow.” He added that they were “white, like polished marble, with a few gray streaks.”3 As did John Whitmer: Quote John Whitmer called them “two crystals or glasses.”4 As did Lucy Mack Smith: Quote Lucy Mack Smith said they resembled “two large bright diamonds.”5 As did David Whitmer: Quote David Whitmer reported that they were “white stones, each of them cased in as spectacles are, in a kind of silver casing, but the bow between the stones was more heavy, and longer apart between the stones, than we usually find it in spectacles.”6 As did William Smith (along with the breastplate) : Quote William Smith further explained that a “silver bow ran over one stone, under the other, around over that one and under the first in the shape of a horizontal figure 8 much like a pair of spectacles.”7 ... Apparently, the interpreters and breastplate, including a rod that could connect them, belonged together as a set. William Smith explained, At one end was attached a rod which was connected with the outer edge of the right shoulder of the breast-plate. By pressing the head a little forward, the rod held the Urim and Thummim before the eyes much like a pair of spectacles. A pocket was prepared in the breastplate on the left side, immediately over the heart. When not in use the [interpreters were] placed in this pocket, the rod being of just the right length to allow it to be so deposited.11 Your theoretical "unbiased adjudicator" would look at these statements and do . . . what? 11 minutes ago, Analytics said: The net effect is that throwing in the additional stories of additional artifacts greatly increases credence in the theory that the whole thing is best explained by storytelling and gullibility. I don't think that is the net effect at all. Thanks, -Smac 1
Analytics Posted October 4, 2022 Posted October 4, 2022 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: As for "in(un)credible" versus "something more simple," I think the present narrative is pretty "simple." Joseph showed the Plates to two sets of witnesses, one of which saw them in "miraculous" circumstances (involving an angel, the voice of God, etc.) and the other seeing them in mundane circumstances. Analytics can only bring himself to "think" that Joseph "may have shown" the Plates to the Eight Witnesses. The reticence here is interesting. Joseph fabricated the Plates but then possibly did not show them to the Eight Witnesses? What's wrong with keeping an open mind about it? 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: And the Eight Witnesses nevertheless went along with their names being used to attest to the physical reality of the plates? And then in and after 1838, when the Whitmers and Hiram Page became estranged from Joseph Smith, none of them bothered to repudiate their witness statements? David Whitmer himself said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them." Two points. First, it's interesting how you pick and choose when you believe David Whitmer and when you don't. Second, even though they left the main body of the Church doesn't mean they lost their religious faith. And even if they were lying or had a view that was more nuanced than what you imagine, what benefit is there to make a big announcement that when you solemnly swore something to the world, it was really a big lie? Who announces to the world their lack of integrity like that? 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Analytics also states that "their testimonies are in desperate need of serious cross examination." Um, what? How does one cross-examine a written statement? You take a deposition of the individuals who signed the written statement. I'm surprised you didn't know that. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Moreover, the statement, all 148 words of it, is a model of simplicity, and contravenes your suggestion that God could/should have gone with "something more simple": It's simple in a way that haphazardly combines the way we use evidence to evaluate things that are governed by natural law and a belief in magic that supersedes natural law. I'm trying to imagine a criminal case where the totality of the evidence of a murder were three people who saw an angel and a 148-word statement that was written by the D.A. and signed by eight "witnesses." When the defense attorney asks for the murder weapon, the crime scene, the body, and evidence that the alleged victim ever existed, we're told that the angel cleaned up the crime scene and removed the body. If I were on a jury, I wouldn't convict somebody with this kind of evidence. Would you? Angels and plates that magically appear and disappear are not simple. What would be simple is for Joseph Smith to quietly go to New York or Boston or Hanover and donate the plates to a university once he no longer needed them. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Analytics also asserts that their statement "shouldn't be taken at face value." Heavy-laden with presuppositions and value judgments is this is, it's utility is not immediately apparent. I'm not making any presuppositions or value judgements. I'm merely explaining why the two statements are inherently unconvincing to almost everybody who isn't already socialized to believe in the religion. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now